• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

So, At this Point the Democrat Platform Is...

cabse5 said:
Many examples withing the dem establishment show a desire to restrict not only the first but second amendment. Are the dems trying to restrict free speech? Yes. Most definitely.
Communism is a stretch as a dem party platform. Socialism is the accepted norm in the dem party. The OP is probably a devoted capitalist and socialism is the antipathy of capitalism.

I take exception to the GOP being a totalitarian party. Prove that.
White privilege? Prove that.
Keeping money in the hands of oligarchs? Prove that. Say, do you think people are getting and money these days?
The separating of mothers and children accusation is just nonsense. Any criminal parent should be separated from their parents. Or should behave alleged murdering parents stay with their kids?
Click to expand...

Having some initiatives that restrict free speech is a stretch from it being the entire platform. Also, I don't think hardcore Bolchevik Communism is really that popular. It's more European style democratic socialism which really isn't the same thing.

Anyway, you are misreading the point of my post. My point was to exaggerate the position of the GOP. I don't think totalitarianism, white nationalism and the like is the platform of the GOP. I was using hyperbole.
 
LowDown said:
1. Open borders and abolishing ICE.
2. Socialism/Communism
3. Violence and intimidation of political opponents.
4. Abolishing free speech/restricting the speech of political opponents.

Astonishing.
Click to expand...

Can you point where in the Democratic Platform (see link below) any of that is stated?

https://www.democrats.org/party-platform
 
Mycroft said:
I think it's okay to use violence to prevent someone from throwing a tomato on DJT. That's what DJT was calling for. Defensive.

Remember what I said about spin?
Click to expand...

This, at the core of the matter, is where we disagree. I don't think you should be allowed to punch someone if they attempt to perform such an action. It's a disproportionate reaction.

Also, I was talking about self-defense. Not Trump-defense.
 
Cisero said:
Having some initiatives that restrict free speech is a stretch from it being the entire platform. Also, I don't think hardcore Bolchevik Communism is really that popular. It's more European style democratic socialism which really isn't the same thing.

Anyway, you are misreading the point of my post. My point was to exaggerate the position of the GOP. I don't think totalitarianism, white nationalism and the like is the platform of the GOP. I was using hyperbole.
Click to expand...

Using hyperbole with the parents shouldn't be separated from the kids statement?
 
cabse5 said:
Using hyperbole with the parents shouldn't be separated from the kids statement?
Click to expand...

I was deliberately using emotional-appeal, not hyperbole. My goal was to misrepresent the Republican stance.
 
Cisero said:
This, at the core of the matter, is where we disagree. I don't think you should be allowed to punch someone if they attempt to perform such an action. It's a disproportionate reaction.

Also, I was talking about self-defense. Not Trump-defense.
Click to expand...

How many times has the left perpetrated violence? Numerous times. And all justified because of one misstatement at a Trump campaign rally? This is ludicrous. This is disingenuous.
 
Cisero said:
This, at the core of the matter, is where we disagree. I don't think you should be allowed to punch someone if they attempt to perform such an action. It's a disproportionate reaction.

Also, I was talking about self-defense. Not Trump-defense.
Click to expand...

It is self-defense.

A person is about to throw a tomato. Do you actually know who is being aimed at? Do you actually know who is going to be hit? By stopping that person, I am defending everyone at the venue.
 
cabse5 said:
How many times has the left perpetrated violence? Numerous times. And all justified because of one misstatement at a Trump campaign rally? This is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

I have never, ever, ever, justified any violence by the left. **** antifa and all the idiots who are violent.

So now, it's a misstatement ? How so ?
 
Cisero said:
I have never, ever, ever, justified any violence by the left. **** antifa and all the idiots who are violent.

So now, it's a misstatement ? How so ?
Click to expand...

My hyperbole.:2wave:
 
Mycroft said:
It is self-defense.

A person is about to throw a tomato. Do you actually know who is being aimed at? Do you actually know who is going to be hit? By stopping that person, I am defending everyone at the venue.
Click to expand...

If his back is turned to you, are you allowed to "beat the crap out of him" ?
If his intent is to harm you, then yes you can defend yourself. You can also stop him from throwing the tomato by blocking his trajectory, or maybe putting him in an arm-lock...

It's a problem of proportionality once again. Punching / beating someone up is way more violent than chucking a tomato.
I feel we're arguing semantics.

The way you defend yourself should be proportional to the violent act being committed. If you lightly push someone at Starbucks because he cut in front of you, you're not allowed to crack his knee open with a crowbar.
 
cabse5 said:
My hyperbole.:2wave:
Click to expand...

It can't be a hyperbole, because you're not exaggerating anything I have ever said. I came into this thread condemning Maxine Waters. From the get-go I've been clear that I don't justify any acts of violence, ergo such a hyperbole is impossible.
 
Cisero said:
If his back is turned to you, are you allowed to "beat the crap out of him" ?
If his intent is to harm you, then yes you can defend yourself. You can also stop him from throwing the tomato by blocking his trajectory, or maybe putting him in an arm-lock...

It's a problem of proportionality once again. Punching / beating someone up is way more violent than chucking a tomato.
I feel we're arguing semantics.

The way you defend yourself should be proportional to the violent act being committed. If you lightly push someone at Starbucks because he cut in front of you, you're not allowed to crack his knee open with a crowbar.
Click to expand...

Tell you what...you defend people your way...I'll defend people my way: I'll bust that dude upside the head.
 
Cisero said:
If his back is turned to you, are you allowed to "beat the crap out of him" ?
If his intent is to harm you, then yes you can defend yourself. You can also stop him from throwing the tomato by blocking his trajectory, or maybe putting him in an arm-lock...

It's a problem of proportionality once again. Punching / beating someone up is way more violent than chucking a tomato.
I feel we're arguing semantics.

The way you defend yourself should be proportional to the violent act being committed. If you lightly push someone at Starbucks because he cut in front of you, you're not allowed to crack his knee open with a crowbar.
Click to expand...

You know how hard it is to get tomato stains out of clothes?
Better yet send him the dry cleaning bill.

Chucking a tomato is an assault on fashion.
 
LowDown said:
1. Open borders and abolishing ICE.
2. Socialism/Communism
3. Violence and intimidation of political opponents.
4. Abolishing free speech/restricting the speech of political opponents.

Astonishing.
Click to expand...

Yes, the alternate reality you inhabit is indeed astonishing.
 
jimbo said:
Which, of course, wasn't the question.
Click to expand...

There's no reason to engage the question when it was presented in a conversation like our illustrious OP decided to start. Nothing in this thread was an honest attempt at discussion, LowDown is just crying his precious little eyes out again.
 
LowDown said:
1. Open borders and abolishing ICE.
2. Socialism/Communism
3. Violence and intimidation of political opponents.
4. Abolishing free speech/restricting the speech of political opponents.

Astonishing.
Click to expand...

It they represent the opposite of trump and those that support his agenda. About all they really need to win in November.
 
Cisero said:
The irony of calling all liberals "intolerant" and "bastards" in the same sentence has not gone unnoticed.
Click to expand...

Not condoning that language, but for the same group of people that are always calling for tolerance of others on behalf of their favored identify group, they sure sow the least tolerance for anyone or anything that doesn't toe their ideology, support their political agenda, or support their political narrative.

The myth of liberal tolerance is exactly that; a myth.
 
eohrnberger said:
Not condoning that language, but for the same group of people that are always calling for tolerance of others on behalf of their favored identify group, they sure sow the least tolerance for anyone or anything that doesn't toe their ideology, support their political agenda, or support their political narrative.

The myth of liberal tolerance is exactly that; a myth.
Click to expand...

Liberals don't tolerate intolerance. That's only hypocritical to morons.
 
Deuce said:
Liberals don't tolerate intolerance. That's only hypocritical to morons.
Click to expand...

That which liberals determine as being intolerant just happens to be anything they disagree with, or nearly so, and don't tolerate it, yet still claim to be the tolerant ones.
Its like having your cake and eating it too.

That is being hypocritical morons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom